56% of American Gamers Don't Buy Games

[Machocruz]

It's not really the wrong emphasis if they're both required for this industry to exist. The only one that's unneccesary is the retail side. Yet they're the ones screwing both ends, and it's somehow developer's fault (and to give credit where it's due, they blame us too.)

Hell even off Extra Credits' video here:
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/project-ten-dollar

More of your money is going to game stop's pocket rather than developers. yet the developers are the greedy assholes...?

Yes, technically without games there would be no industry that involved them, but originally I believe the first video game came before the first customer wanting a video game, but I'm open to someone who has solid historical facts correcting me on this.

But in terms of who is more important in this dynamic, it's the customer, always. They don't need to own a video game, but a video game business needs to sell their products. The business has to cater to their desires, or they can try the riskier proposition of supplying an exclusive audience, on a 60 million budget (which I think is ridiculous. I'd settle for Skyrim with Morrowind graphics and no voice acting, if it meant the same amount of content and player agency as that game had, for example)

Personally when I buy used I know I'm being a cheap-skate, specifically because I would prefer a pristine new copy/package every time. And I'm lazy because I would rather walk to the Gamestop nearby than drive to a Target or someplace they sell new, sealed, games a bit cheaper. But I'm not going to force that way of thinking down the rest of the markets throat.

 

[TheDooD]

Hey, publishers, if SO MANY PEOPLE aren't buying new, and one of the big reasons is price, perhaps it'd be a good idea to reduce your fucking prices already. You know, like what any other business would do.

A publisher receives 17$ per a 60$ game sold( PC market excluded), when the price goes down they receive even less. Now mister marketer, how much do you think a game should cost, so that the additional sales compensate the lower price?

Lets go with what Bethesda's own Todd Howard said and say $40. Of course, for retail they'll only then make about $7-$8, but they have avenues to make up for that. Avenues like DLC and digital sales.

They'd have to take a bit of a hit in the short term, yes. But it'll be beneficial in the long term. Thanks to the iPhone/iPad, which lets you get literally hundreds of new and interesting games for free or $1-$5, paying $60 for a game is slowly but surely becoming obsolete.

Hey, publishers, if SO MANY PEOPLE aren't buying new, and one of the big reasons is price, perhaps it'd be a good idea to reduce your fucking prices already. You know, like what any other business would do.

Especially you EA, who said that the $60 price was a problem way back in 200-fucking-7, and still have done NOTHING to remedy this despite now having your own store where you can charge whatever you want.

Publishers are so quick to blame so many things for the loss of money, but I would bet that their own broken-ass business model is the biggest reason.

Yeah.. how dare developers keep charging the same price they've been charging for decades. It's not as if they're spending a whole sh'load more on developing art assets for high definition visuals, or spending more money on getting actual voice actors and orchestrated music instead of 8bit beeping and booping, to say nothing of how it's free to develop multiplayer modes and make sure it's all balanced as well as having a semi-decent single player mode. And we certainly know they don't have to deal with inflation -- after all, movie tickets have continually gone down in price since the 80s. Thank goodness we have super-intelligent folks like you to point out the problem is simply they're charging too much for what we expect in a game.

Oh wait.. the opposite of all that.

I got a fix for that. It's called not doing those things.

Don't waste money on amazing graphics that'll be obsolete a year later, and instead focus on creating a strong art-style. Don't waste money on a huge, orchestral soundtrack that will end up sounding just like every other orchestral soundtrack, and instead focus on small, more atmospheric tunes that come in, set the mood, then leave. Don't waste money on a multiplayer mode because not everything needs multiplayer, and focus on the story. And voice actors won't mean anything if the game's story is crap, so use the money you're saving by not doing the other things and hire some actual writers.

And yes yes, inflation and all that. But large amounts of people aren't willing to buy the games at the current prices, so they need to change so those people can buy the games.

And yeah yeah, game developers work hard. We all have problems. Customers buy from the ones offering the best deal. Right now that's used sales. So start offering better deals. Customers have no obligation to buy from anyone.

I agree with both of your comments completely Publishers have to change if they're gonna make some money out this relationship. Unless suddenly everybody in the US has a job that pays 70k per year they gonna need to sacrifice their current bottom lines.

 

[Giftfromme]

To me piracy won't be that much of a deal for PC as more and more games are going the multiplayer route. It kind of sucks that once you buy a game and it activates on steam (or Origin now) that it can't be returned or deactivated (I understand why games can't be traded through steam accounts, but apparently a trading scheme is being implemented by Steam currently, correct me if I'm wrong though).

Although when I uninstalled Just Cause 2, that deactivated the game, which was cool. But I wouldn't be able to to sell it at a store, as they can't verify if I actually have deactivated it. I knew nothing of Origin when I bought BF3, and to me its a piece of crap. Also the web interface is so stupid, why can't I just view that in game? It makes connecting to new servers much faster and easier, like every other multiplayer game out there. I would love to return the game or trade it in and get some money back, but can't as it's already activated. I just wanted the damn game, I didn't want to research all of its features beforehand. A second hand market for these types of games would be cool. Although if Steam does implement their system, then this won't be an issue.

I can't imagine how the current second hand market is bad for companies. If someone buys a game and realises they don't like it, it's not as if they will continue to buy the extra content for the game and give the publisher etc more money. If they can sell it, get some money back, and allow someone else to play the game for a lower price, that's fine. That $10 thing is good too, but I haven't researched how it works. But I'm guessing once sell your copy of a multiplayer game, the CD key can't be used again as it's already activated. But someone could buy that second hand copy of that multiplayer game, pay the publisher the $10 and can then get online, that's cheaper than buying the original at full price. That system works for me.

To my mind piracy is not as bad so much as its proliferation with all the public torrent sites. It's not as if every person that pirates a game would have bought the game if they couldn't pirate that title. It's just the sheer proliferation and availability of pirated content that makes it bad in my opinion.

 

[Something Amyss]

You seem to forget the fact that the average consumer has the lowest portion of overall spending power (adjusted for inflation) since the 1920s.

I really wish people would remember this before they start talking about games being "cheaper" now.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

I think it's because of the INSANE PRICES?

Games are longer, more complex, and (adjusted for inflation) cheaper than they've ever been. So, not that insane, really.

Anyway, this wouldn't be a problem if they didn't let Gamestop step all over them. Gamestop relies solely on one product, a product that can be purchased digitally. And yet they don't share used game profits? That's the problem, not people buying used games or prices.

You seem to forget the fact that the average consumer has the lowest portion of overall spending power (adjusted for inflation) since the 1920s.

Hmm. Games have stayed essentially the same price for thirty years, adjusted for inflation they should cost now about 200 dollars, at least according to an internet calculator. I don't know how much the portion of overall spending has gone down for the average consumer, but considering games are also now longer and more complex, the prices are still justifiable.

 

[Atmos Duality]

And yet people will come here and say that used sales don't cause the publisher any reason to worry...

Of course they don't! After all, used sales are *legitimate* ways in which the developers/publishers don't get money, whereas piracy is bad because it's *illegitimate*. What matters is the principle of the thing, not the, ya know, actual effect being virtually the same damn thing in the end.

/end sarcasm

The only thing illegitimate here is the "Used Games are the same as Piracy" argument.
It's a common argument I see a LOT on these forums, and it's been disproved many MANY *MANY* times before in other similar topics.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

snip

I didn't say they need to give me a damn thing. It's just they need not to ***** when I choose to buy their game used when it was too damn expensive for me to buy it new. If Publishers want people to buy new they need to sell cheap and stop treating those that buy used, rent, and or share games like they stole money out their pockets.

Just for curiosities sake what price do you think a Triple A title should go at you know with the mulit-year development and total costs being over 500million dollars?

It's not my fault somebody else has HORRIBLE money management skills, to burn through 500 million there better be a fucking rocket going up in the air when the game is launched as well. Hell with a good 5 million an indie company can make some badass that's if they need that much. Movies have been made with less, cars cost less. So why in the fuck does a AAA need to cost SO much fucking money for just 5 or so hours of Single player content, maybe multiplayer and hopefully DLC. You tell how, why do they really need 500 MILLION to get the job done and they STILL manage to make a overall average product.

1) It would take MUCH more then 500 million just to build a rocket. You'd have maybe a fraction of an actual shuttle with that budget.

2) That isn't the average budget for a video game. As of last year, its 20 Million per triple A game and that's MUCH less then most big title action movies you saw last summer. For example, Green Lantern had a 200 million dollar budget.

3) Obviously an Indie developer is gonna need less money, the point of being an Indie developer is that they're independent and work with a VERY small staff as opposed to a whole team of developers, artists and programmers.

4) Triple AAA games cost so much money because they're a lot fucking bigger then your average indie game. They have a whole team of writers, voice actors, artists, programmers, developers, marketing teams etc etc, working on the game as opposed to just a handful of people that comprise most indie teams. You have to pay their paychecks ya know.

5) The Average length of a game isn't 5 hours. They last much longer then most indie games and even then, the amount of gameplay you get out is equal to the amount of time you spend playing it, not the amount of time the developers average out of the play testers speed runs. A 5 hour game isn't worth 5 hours if you end up playing it for several days.

6) The price of video games has actually dropped if you factor in inflation.

7) The current cost of video games is currently in a place where the publisher can make money, albiet a very small one and to cover their losses, they need to assure that each game sells rather decently.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think it's because of the INSANE PRICES?

Make a game thirty dollars, and used games will cost twenty five. It. Still. Won't. Work.

The lower the price, the fewer people will feel the pinch to save every buck. It's funny, because IT. DID. WORK. WITH. CDs. Lower the prices, more new sales.

HUH. howabout that.

 

[Machocruz]

but considering games are also now longer and more complex, the prices are still justifiable.

I don't see how you're arriving at that. Beyond behind the scenes, technical complexity, show me an example of a current gen game in any genre, and I could easily find examples of greater length and complexity from 10 or more years ago. And even recent games that may be more complex in some regards, just don't feel that way when you're playing, so little does the complexity involve things that actually matter in a game.

I know the industry is trying to sell that idea, in hopes we won't call foul when a sequel to a 20 year old game accomplishes less with a fraction of the budget and development time.

But I still agree the price is justifiable, just not for those specific reasons. Demon's Souls isn't any more complex or longer an RPG than Gothic 2, for example, but I still got what I feel is $60 dollars worth out of it.

 

[Voodoomancer]

Lets not think of it as costing Publishers money, think of it as helping the retailers

Though this does make me fear people will redouble their campaigning of online passes.

 

[Koroviev]

I think it's because of the INSANE PRICES?

Make a game thirty dollars, and used games will cost twenty five. It. Still. Won't. Work.

I don't have the data to support the claim that people would stop buying used games all together at that price point, but I feel confident that less people would certainly feel inclined to do so. In other words, I'm willing to bet that there are more people who can afford to spend an extra $30 every now and then than an extra $60.

 

[aidutcher]

I see some people saying that if they lowered new game prices, used prices would just get even lower, so that strategy wouldn't work.

That's a distinct possibility, but I'd like to state that I'd be more likely to buy new if the new price was $30-40 at launch instead of $60, even if the used price was still less money.

I can't speak for the rest of the financially challenged gaming community, though.

 

[Irridium]

Hey, publishers, if SO MANY PEOPLE aren't buying new, and one of the big reasons is price, perhaps it'd be a good idea to reduce your fucking prices already. You know, like what any other business would do.

Especially you EA, who said that the $60 price was a problem way back in 200-fucking-7, and still have done NOTHING to remedy this despite now having your own store where you can charge whatever you want.

Publishers are so quick to blame so many things for the loss of money, but I would bet that their own broken-ass business model is the biggest reason.

Valve has proven [http://www.geekwire.com/2011/experiments-video-game-economics-valves-gabe-newell] that the less you charge, the more you make. Perhaps you should try that.

The thing that always bugs me is people complaining that they don't make enough new IP's but then won't buy new IP games new, they rent them or buy them used.

Well when the publisher doesn't market them, charges $60, and releases the at the same time as the next big Modern Warfare, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Battlefield, Elder Scrolls, and/or Fallout game, can you really blame them for not wanting to risk their money on it?

Would you risk $60 on a game you've never heard of, when instead of it you can buy the sequel to a series you already know you love?

Which doesn't change the fact that your hardly in any position to ***** about a lack of new IP's why do you think they turn out so many sequels in the first place.

Because sequels sell better than the original IP. And why do they sell? Because when everyone buys the new IP used, they love it and buy the sequel new.

This industry is so focused on short-term gain they fail to see the long-term affects. Used sales are perfect for building franchises. Used sales do transfer into new sales. It just doesn't happen quickly.

And again, people buy the new IP used because the publisher doesn't market it, charges the same amount as the huge sequels, and releases them at the same time as those sequels. Expecting them to sell well in that environment is just insanity. It's not the consumer's fault that publishers don't market their games, charge a lot of money for them, and release them at a time where the consumer's money will be put towards sequels. It's the publisher's fault for releasing it in such an environment.

The publish is already only making 27$ a sale. That means an average production 30 mio dollars will only start making profit after a 1 million copies sold.

And even if the prices are lowered a used copy is still worth less than a new so the same type of customer will still go for the cheaper option.

I say go digital. Kill the used and be able to lower prices in one swoop.

Most customers hate buying used though. You hear it all the time. About how much people hate Gamestop, how they wish games didn't cost so much so they can buy more.

People buying used after a price drop will buy used no matter what, or just not buy at all. Which means you will NEVER get any money out of them, which means they are NOT lost sales.

There's also the fact that many in the industry agree that $60 is too much to charge these days. Mainly EA(who said it way back in 2007, mind you), Todd Howard(of Bethesda fame), and David Jaffe(of Twisted Metal/God of War fame).

EA's in the best position to lower prices, since they have their own store now, and they're not. Bethesda could charge whatever it wants for Skyrim and it would sell. Could you imagine if they charged $40 for it? It'd be game changing. It would cause people to go "wait, if Skyrim is only $40, why should I pay $60 for this game?". But, they're not doing that. David Jaffe thinks Twisted Metal is good enough to be $60. And while its not as hyped as Skyrim, it'd still be great if he did what he said should be done and lower its price.

 

[Zom-B]

I have 170+ games on Steam that disagree with this article.

No, you have 170+ games that put you within the 44% that do buy games.

 

[Antari]

Its not hard to see how they can combat DLC and recover income. Make better games actually WORTH the release price. They might find things change rapidly when they accomplish that.